The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has sought to reshape and strengthen executive power in America’s political system. Trump and his allies have so far succeeded by defying the separation of powers and going beyond the limits of the executive branch.
Both Congress and the Supreme Court, the respective heads of their associated federal branches, have silently given up their authority or even condoned the White House’s strategy.
However, Trump’s alliance with Congress is not guaranteed for the rest of his term, as the American midterm elections in 2026 could see the rival Democratic Party gain control of one or both chambers. A split or opposition-controlled Congress could see the legislative branch disrupt the Trump administration’s efforts, or even fight to regain its authority.
This will put a major spotlight on the midterms as a political test, both for the popularity of Trump’s actions and for the strength of the U.S. political system. While violent rhetoric and fears for election security have grown, the U.S. will more than likely hold a free, fair, and peaceful vote.
However, there remains a slight sliver of doubt as to whether Trump will accept results he doesn't agree with. The pushing of election conspiracy theories and the deploying of National Guard soldiers domestically raise the question: How far is Trump willing to go to preserve his national project?
Promises made
Domestically, Trump has been able to push through many of the campaign promises he made during the 2024 election by going beyond the boundaries permitted to the executive by the Constitution.
This expansion has come at the expense of Congress, but the Republican-controlled legislature has refused to defend its exclusive authorities.
When Trump’s initiatives have been challenged in the judicial branch, federal courts have consistently ruled against him, only for the Supreme Court to step in and allow his actions to proceed.
In attempting to meet these campaign promises, Trump has expanded the scope of the presidency by directly influencing congressionally-chartered organisations, directing taxpayer funds, and levying tariffs.
Expansion at a glance
| Campaign Promise | How it was achieved | Traditional Congressional authority | Supreme Court ruling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firing of Federal Employees | Mass firing of probationary employees ; firing leadership of independent government watchdogs. | Congress created various independent watchdog agencies to assist federal employees, but have failed to defend those groups. | The court has temporarily allowed the firings to go through before any official ruling. |
| Shutting Down Federal Programs | Reducing agencies to "statutory minimum” ; refusal to give allocated funding to certain programs. | Congress has “power of the purse” and allocates money for budgets. Has not enforced laws requiring the president to distribute allocated funds. | The Court has allowed the admin to withhold foreign aid funding, and have blocked orders for the government to fulfill signed contracts. |
| Pressuring Universities | Eliminating federal grants for universities ; launching civil rights investigations into schools for “anti-semitism”. | Congress has failed to maintain its control over the 'power of the purse' and to ensure that already allotted federal funds are properly distributed. | The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case, while lawsuits remain in lower courts. |
| Tariffs | Use of presidential “emergency powers” to implement global and wide ranging tariffs. | Only Congress has the specific ability to levy tariffs ; some Republicans have challenged Trump, but leadership has remained supportive. | The Supreme Court will soon hear a case to determine if Trump has the authority to do so. |
Redefining powers
The administration has justified this expansion as inherent to the President’s role in the Constitution, influenced by a legal theory known as the “unitary executive theory.” The theory is rooted in wording from the Constitution, which states that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President,” and it has been used to justify the expansion of presidential power even before Trump.
This shift was demonstrated in the 2024 Supreme Court case Trump v. The United States, in which the Court established that presidential immunity extends to any “official act” taken by a president—without defining what an official act means.
Administration officials and their political supporters have also increasingly sought to describe the president’s power as holistic. During a recent CNN interview, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller argued that Trump had “plenary authority” to send National Guard soldiers into cities without the approval of local officials.
When reporters asked Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth what authorisations the U.S. Navy had to use deadly force on ships in international waters, both men argued that their authority to do so was inherent.
Looming midterm
While Trump has so far been successful in this project, it has essentially hinged on an allied Congress. In 2026, the United States will hold a midterm election, during which all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for reelection.
If the Republican Party can retain control of both chambers, the Trump administration will likely be able to continue expanding presidential powers without opposition. However, if the Democrats win just one chamber of the legislature, they would be able to put up official roadblocks.
Generally, American midterm elections often see the opposition party make gains. With polls indicating that Trump is slowly becoming more unpopular, it is likely that the Democratic Party will gain control of at least one chamber of Congress.
The Trump administration is aware of this and has demonstrated its concern by calling for Republican-controlled states to gerrymander districts in favour of Republicans. In response, Texas, a major Republican state, sought to redraw its congressional districts to eliminate potential Democratic seats. This prompted California, a major Democratic state, to respond in kind, sparking a nationwide tit-for-tat.
Growing uncertainty
Generally, one of the strengths of the American political system was the certainty and validity of its elections, but over the past few years, these principles have been weakened.
Most notably, after the 2020 election saw Joe Biden defeat Trump’s first reelection bid, Trump repeatedly claimed that the election was rigged against him, despite no evidence to support the claim. This rhetoric culminated in the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol building.
Despite Joe Biden assuming the presidency, claims that the election was fraudulent continued to be spread by Trump and eventually by the Republican Party as well. Upon his return to power, Trump even appointed a prominent election denier to an official position overseeing election security.
While no modern election in the United States has actually been affected by mass fraud, the confidence that once supported American elections is now weakened, creating a tense scenario for the upcoming midterms.
Increased political violence, including assassinations and extreme partisan rhetoric, along with the growing normalisation of deploying federal soldiers, combined with Trump’s narrative of fraudulent elections, raises the question of how far the administration is willing to go if their power is threatened.
Possible scenarios:
- Elections proceed as normal (85%): Despite years of claims that the electoral system is manipulated, American bureaucratic systems and the general adherence to norms remain strong enough to maintain calm. If the Republicans retain control of Congress, the Trump administration would likely refrain from calling the process rigged. If Democrats win control of one or both chambers, Trump will likely try to discredit their win but take no serious action.
- The Trump Administration takes legal challenge (10%): Democrats win control of one or both chambers, and the Trump administration attempts to throw out votes through legal challenges. The federal court system would likely reject these challenges, as it has in the past, but it will still likely cause national tensions and degrade confidence in elections even further. While Trump now retains more political influence than before, two years in power is not enough to completely shift the judiciary in his favor.
- Aggressive executive action (5%): If the Democrats win, the Trump administration could take an unprecedented step, attempting to use new legal powers granted to the presidency to disrupt the election. Potential violence at the ballot box, fueled by increasingly extreme rhetoric, could be used to justify postponing the vote or overseeing the election using military force. Two years of continued military deployment in civilian areas could normalize such a practice.
Bottom Line
Overall, despite the increasingly violent rhetoric and political anger in the country, the United States is still very likely to hold a stable and fair election. Any actual upheaval to the standard political process that could cause greater political damage remains highly unlikely.
However, the fact that there is even a sliver of doubt that the elections will proceed as normal shows how far American politics have degraded over the years. The country has thrived on the certainty that elections will be peaceful and that those in power will relinquish it at the end of their mandate. Further damage to that idea only creates greater risk of failure in the future.
